Islam - global monster or global scapegoat?

Greetings! Interesting topic.

The analogy is one that occurs to many people; I blogged on this myself, not too long ago. Arabs and Jews are both Semetic peoples; both claim descent from the Patriarch Abraham; Muslims and Jews are both "The People of The Book." We both say Shalom/Salaam.

But where the analogy falls down is the seeming inability of moderate Muslims to condemn the criminal actions of the radical minority. Muslims behead people on international TV and we don't see any outcry from the Muslim world. Guns are fired by Al Sadr militia from inside a holy Mosque and no Fatwa is issued calling for his arrest. Muslims are blown up on the streets of Bagdhad by other Muslims and this is excused because it hurts the US. We see Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11, even though there were Muslims inside the World Trade Center.

The card of anti-Muslim prejudice has been overplayed. When the Muslim government of the Sudan was first confronted about the mass rapes carried on by the Muslim Janjaweed militias, the initial response was that we were unfairly blaming Islam. A quote from the Sudanese foreign minister Mustafa Ismail dismissed UN reports, saying, "It is nothing new of this organization to take up this role that raises suspicion." No, we are not. There are hundreds of eye-witness accounts of atrocities. See http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/07/07_821.html

In 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported on two girls who were sold by their Muslim father into slavery in Saudi Arabia. Their white American mother had divorced her husband and he sold the girls into slavery in retribution. Quoting from that story "Saudi law forbids women of any age from leaving their country without permission. Another way of stating those same facts would be to say that two adult U.S. citizens are trapped in a country where women are treated as the property of men..." The story was dismissed as the lies of a Jewish paper.

But the UN Report on Women in 2000 detailed the thousands of brutal "honor murders" of women that take place in the Islamic world. The Institute for the Secularism of the Islamic Society wrote an editorial entitled "Yes, It is Islamic Don't Apologize for It!" See http://www.secularislam.org/women/dont.htm Do you want to read how depraved and monsterous these honor murders can be? See http://www.ourjerusalem.com/arabpress/story/arabpress20010416.html (WARNING: ADULT CONTENT)

I don't believe that these terrible actions are representative of the majority of Muslims. But I do believe that it is necessary for majority of Muslims to not only condemn these acts against civilization, but to ACT to stop them. Islam must condemn terrorism. Ostrachize and arrest the suicide bomber. Arrest the husband that kills his wife, the brother that murders his sister. Through the rapist in jail. Grant human rights to women throughout the Muslim world.

Then Islam can take its place in the world.

Larry replied better than I could. This is why the nazi comparison does not apply. If a sizable minority of Jews in Hitler's Germany were doing the same sorts of things that are being perpetrated by a sizable minority of Muslims today, without the public outcry, then the Holocaust would have likely continued without challenge from the rest of the world (sad, but true). We are talking about a faction who is dedicated to the extinction, conversion, or subjugation of the rest of the world to their beliefs. As Larry said, if the Muslim majority wants to be seen as a religion of peace, they need to both condemn these actions and comply with the rest of the world in helping to round up these factions and bring them to justice.

I doubt the Afghani women forced to wear burqas during the Taliban regime would consider Islam to be a "scapegoat", I doubt the Israelis who have been bombed on busses, in malls, in parks simply because they are Jewish would consider Islam to be a "scapegoat". Was it a mere coincidence that all 19 9/11 hijackers shared the same Muslim faith? No, it was not (to the Muslim nations' credit, SOME of the nations did step forward and condemn these attacks, at least).

Interesting and thought procoking article, cacto

I don't believe that these terrible actions are representative of the majority of Muslims. But I do believe that it is necessary for majority of Muslims to not only condemn these acts against civilization, but to ACT to stop them.

That is the crux of the matter. Ok let me give an analogy here.

When I want to buy, say a Toyota Lexus, I am not going to go to the car dealer and ask him to show me the manuals and spend time poring over the technical details like engine power or transmission ratios. No I may not have the capacity to imbibe that information or I may just not have enough time for it.

What I will do is go to a friend who has a Lexus and ask him about the car or go for a test drive or simply still observe the car being driven by others on the streets.

How does a non muslim view Islam. He will not have time to read the Koran (If he is a Christian he may not have read the Bible, either). Anyway, he looks at a muslim near him or in the news or in TV and sees what kind of a life is that guy leading? What is he saying?

And this is where Islam comes out in poor light.

Islamic leaders will remind us the the Prophet Mohammed was a tolerant man but we do not see that tolerance in the Paul Johnson beheading or blowing up passengers in buses in Jerusalem.
They will tell us that Islam was the first religion to enshrine womens rights. Agreed, but we get a different picture when we see muslimk women being treated like chattel in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
They say that 'Jihad' is only eliminating wrong thoughts in the mind but that is not the definition of jehad seen in Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Phillipines, etc.
They say Islam respects all religions. But we do not see the Saudis and much of the Middle East giving permission for the construction of churches or temples or synagogues.

So we have a variance from what 'official' Islam says and what a vocal minority of it's adherents believe and display.

That is the problem.

Elie Wiesel once said "silence only helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. Neutrality only helps the tormentor, never the tormented". I believe that quote is applicable here in noting the appalling silence of many Muslim leaders in condemning the atrocities of their militant factions.

As devil's advocate, however, I would suggest to the Western world and to Israel that the most effective way to elicit such statements from the Muslim leaders would be to seriously examine our own actions and let the chips fall where they may. As I have often said to my kids, "it doesn't matter who started it. YOU need to be the bigger person and help to end it". If they can understand it, at 9 and 6 years of age, why can't we?

I believe something that people do things for a reason. It may not be a good reason, but in their eyes, their action was justified. I get a lot of arguments when I tell people that the muslim terrorists do what they do for a reason. They get all out of shape, "Are you crazy!? They're brainwashed! What do we possibly do that would legitimize their murder?"

I have to remind them that I said that it might not be a good reason- I personally don't see any good excuse for murder, but I believe that people have fundamental reasons that they do what they do. For example, we can agree that the Germans were willing to move to the radical fascist form of government after world war 1 because of the immense hardships of their economy. Fascism is in its design intended to jumpstart an economy through government corporatism, theres no denying that Germany's crippled economy was the reason that the majority of people were ready to accept the new government. Why was Germany's economy so crippled? Most would agree with me in saying that it was because of the massive "war reparations" that the victorious nations of world war 1 made germany pay. Their industrial base was crippled from war, their male population was significantly reduced from fighting, the NYSE had just crashed enormously signaling the beginning of the great depression, and now they would immidiately have to start paying impossible sums to the victors. I really can't blame the german people for seeking a radical government. The winners of world war 1 could have stopped asking for reparations, could have given germany time to recover but they did it, and they are indirectly responsible for all the acts of the fascist government that they "helped" to install. Is that an excuse for the holocaust? Certainly not. But riddle me this- if you were president of america during that time period, and you KNEW that demanding reparations was going to lead to a radical dictatorship, what would you do?

We KNOW that our involvement in the middle east leads to terrorism. In our eyes its not justified, but it happens anyway. Right now, we have military bases in saudi arabia, which are there to support a dictatorship from being dethroned. Protecting the saudi royal family goes completely against american morals of everyone's right to self-determination, and pisses off a lot of muslims who would like to see a different government in charge. In addition, by supporting the Saudi royal family we are supporting the controlling member of a massive oil cartel which, in collusion with oil production in other countries, effectively controls the worlds oil prices and supply. Why are we doing this? Collusion is completely against our American values of supporting open competetive capitalism- why do we spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars supporting an oil monopoly?

I believe that if you really believe in saving american lives, then you support completely getting out of the middle east, including in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Isarel. Its not being a pussy, it being smart- we can't afford to be stubborn or headstrong when lives are at stake. OK, so they aren't justified at all in their terrorism, does that mean that if you are willing to see more americans killed and more of our civil liberties taken away just because you think it would be pussy for us to move out of the middle east now? So when we do they'll have riots in the street, laughing about how they drove the americans out of their land- so what? In the end it means that the government isn't meddling in other countries, and it means that you and your family are safer. This doesn't even mean that all support for Israel would have to completely end- if we were to close all foreign military bases and stop all foreign aid, or even just foreign military aid, we could afford to lower taxes by hundreds of billions. Private citizens could then donate their money to Israeili organizations if they wished. A lot of people already do support israel through private donations to such organizations as the Jewish United Fund, and you can even donate directly to the Israeli Defense Forces.

I know a lot of people will argue with my reasoning, but if you're one of those people that believe the Bush rhetoric that "they hate us because of our freedom" then don't even bother responding because you're too moronic and racist for me to even consider listening to.

too moronic and racist for me to even consider listening to.

Islam is not a race.

fine... moronic and anti-semetic.

moronic

So unless you embrace Islam or Judaism, you are a moron. What left wing nonsense.

So unless you embrace Islam or Judaism, you are a moron. What left wing nonsense.

Talk about reactionary right-wing nonsense! You seem to be failing from a general lack of critical reasoning & reading skills sir.

Did you actually READ what cwarsh wrote??:

I know a lot of people will argue with my reasoning, but if you're one of those people that believe the Bush rhetoric that "they hate us because of our freedom" then don't even bother responding because you're too moronic and racist for me to even consider listening to.

This says NOTHING of anyone being a moron if you don't embrace Islam or Judaism. Read it again, three times slowly if needed.

While I think it is stretch to say that someone who agrees with that particular piece of Bush illogic is racist or anti-semetic, I strongly agree that the statement "they hate us for our freedom" is one of the most inane, idiotic, and dangerous statements Bush has made.

They don't have us for our freedom, they hate us because:

1) They are reactionary fundementalists driven by blindness and dogma, both religious but MORE importantly political. Their leaders whip them into the same mindless dogmatic fury that leads people like Tim McVeigh to kill innocent civilians. Dogma is dogma, no matter what the guise. Fundementalism is one of the most, perhaps THE most dangerous of ideologies on the planet, and this includes fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalism Chistianity, etc. If you doubt the danger of fundamentalist Christians, just look at how an extreme faction of them has justified killing of doctors who perform abortions, as well as some who have advocated killing nearly anyone who they view as a threat to their extreme views.

2) They hate a relatively small number the US foreign policies, including: The US strong (some claim blind) support of Israel, condeming the violence & terrrism of Palestinians, yet virtually ignoring the violence & terrorism of Israel; The US military occupation of Islamic holy sites in Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and elsewhere. There are many conservatives echoing this same sentiment, including many retired "top brass" from the Pentagon, CIA, etc. People who *really* know Middle-East politics and have years of experience in the region often disagree strongly with the policies of the current Bush adminstration and it's extremist "neo-con" puppetmasters like the Project for a New American Century.

3) The US has perpetrated many actions that, despite what we may think, are viewed a crimes against Islam and Islamic peoples. Recall in the first Gulf war (Gulf War Part I), how the US killed thousands of fleeing Iraqui troops who had ALREADY surrendered and were retreating. That day was a cowardly act, and one I am ashamed of as an American and as a human being. And if you are not, then you should re-examine your own dogma and blind patriotism. In the current war in Iraq, we have killed between 10,000 and 18,000 (some say more) inocent civilians. That includes thousands of women and children. I know that "war is hell" and civillian deaths are a outcome of nearly all wars, especially those fought in cities like Baghdad, Najaf, and other large populous cities in Iraq, BUT I think the current war suffers from a SAD lack of real insight and planning, and we are paying the price now (with the US quickly approaching 1,000 dead). We are not making any less terrorists in the world by further fanning the flames and killing innocent people in the name of "liberation"

For more info about the "mile of death" see these sites:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/830495/posts
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt01.html

More links on these topics:

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html

"I know a lot of people will argue with my reasoning, but if you're one of those people that believe the Bush rhetoric that "they hate us because of our freedom" then don't even bother responding because you're too moronic and racist for me to even consider listening to"

If you can't see the political aims of people like bin Laden and the leadership in fundamentalist Islamic nations, and how democracy and freedom are a direct threat to their cultish hold on populations, then YOU are a moron. As I have said many times previous, the vast majority of "Islamic" violence is political, but Islam spends a great deal of time confusing religion, law, and politics.

Funny how people like cwarsh can spend hours excusing terrorism through politics but would rather die than agree with Bush that it is often CAUSED by their own politics. Psuedo-intellectuals like we see here spend hours trying to figure out what we did to cause terrorism, and do little to condemn terrorism.

In the end, they just give talking points to terrorists. Morons, indeed.

If you can't see the political aims of people like bin Laden and the leadership in fundamentalist Islamic nations, and how democracy and freedom are a direct threat to their cultish hold on populations, then YOU are a moron. As I have said many times previous, the vast majority of "Islamic" violence is political, but Islam spends a great deal of time confusing religion, law, and politics.

I agree, the organized acts of terrorism like bin Laden and his ilk are political, and religion is used as a ruse to convince people ignorant and desparate enough to think that by blowing up "the great satan" (some of whom were Islamic!) on 9/11 is going to get them brownie points with Allah. Fundamentalist will justify ANYthing for their ideology.

But the sad fact is that Bush confuses religion, law, and politics as well. With all his cowboy macho BS talk of "us vs. them", "good vs. evil", "axis of evil", "wanted dead or alive" he just further muddies the water between politics and religion, as well as dumps gas on the fires of hatred and further enrages the fundamentalist wackos who see themselves in a "great Jihad" holy war against the US and the Western world. These are not people you want to piss off unless absolutely needed! The brash, hamfisted "age of empire" attitude of the current extremist neo-con conservatives like Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. is the mot reckless and dangerous the US has had.

Funny how people like cwarsh can spend hours excusing terrorism through politics but would rather die than agree with Bush that it is often CAUSED by their own politics. Psuedo-intellectuals like we see here spend hours trying to figure out what we did to cause terrorism, and do little to condemn terrorism.

I didn't really think he was excusing terrorism at all. Please point to the exact place where you accuse cwarsh of such excusing. And I did not, for one milisecond excuse terrorism. Terrorism, one of the lowest scummiest forms of violence is appalling, and needs to be stamped out. But what (I think) you and I would disagree on, is HOW to do this. Launching poorly planned wars on flimsy evidence, killing 10,000+ innocent civillians, esablishing long-term military presense in Islamic holy lands is NOT a very smart way to help stop terrorism. Most of the Americans I know who travel overseas frequently are FAR more worried about anti-America terrorism now then before the Iraq war started. And they should be. I have long been wanting to travel to Egypt & see the pyramids, go to Morroco & see the Sahara, but there is NO WAY IN HELL I would go now. It's just plain too dangerous. And it was NOT like this before. Not that there wasn't risk, but nothing like we are seeing now.

As far as excusing terrorism, try this one on for size: Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 190,000 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND) people, the VAST majority of whom were non-military, innocent civillians. And many military experts have said that dropping the bomb was undeeded, and Japan was likely to fail and surrender anyway, but I know this can be debated till the cows come home. BUT, the point is we did it. The US chose to kill inoccent civillians indescriminately, in order to win the war. Why? Because they knew that such a massive show of power would terrify Japan into surrender. Yet, despite this act of terrorism, most Americans can supress the horror and guilt, excusing it by saying things like "we had to, to win the war!". It's very easy to point out the psychological repression and appologism of other nations. It seems much harder for most Americans to turn the critical gaze inward, and analyze what actions we (as a nation) have played (both positive and negative) in the current geo-political climate.

So, we all should be asking questions like "why do they hate us?" "what could drive a human being to fly a plane into a a building and kill 3000+ innocent people?", "what about US policy might be making us the #1 target for global terrorism?" If you aren't then you are choosing ignorance, choosing to hide your head in the sand while terrorism will likely increase worldwide over the next 10-20 years.

-beb

PS "Psuedo-intellectuals" is a cheap shot used mostly by people who are either a) anti-intellectual b) themselves so high and mighty as to think they are a "real intellectual", while those who they disagree with are somehow lesser thinkers.

"If you can't see the political aims of people like bin Laden and the leadership in fundamentalist Islamic nations, and how democracy and freedom are a direct threat to their cultish hold on populations, then YOU are a moron. As I have said many times previous, the vast majority of "Islamic" violence is political, but Islam spends a great deal of time confusing religion, law, and politics."

There is no confusion. You take your own freedom for granted while condemning millions of innocent arabs to lives under oppressive dictatorships that America supports not only diplomatically but also through financial and military aid. When George Washinton was fighing for our sovereignty he was helped with donations of weapons and military expertise from the French- imagine if the French instead decided to support the british in maintaining a dictatorship. Would American have ever happened?

Forgive me, because I have certain beliefs. I believe that all people have the right to self-determination and the right to choose their own form of government. I believe that its perverted that the American government which was founded on these beliefs would have any business actively supporting the disenfranchisement of millions of people through upholding an extremely unpopular dictatorship.

First of all, thanks for all the comments ladies and gentlemen. This article was an experiment in a more passionate writing style for me, and it's good to see that so many people thought it was worth a comment.

However I'd like to say right now that any further name-calling and other childish bullshit will not be tolerated on my blog. If you spend time abusing the person and not the point, and you don't at the same time say something incredibly insightful, then I'll delete your posts. It's that simple.

As for the other comments...

Larry: I think you're probably right here in some ways. From the news and various other sources I've seen, there doesn't seem to be particularly widespread disapproval of terror attacks against American targets. But then I feel that there is a reason for this apart from the blind hate which some undoubtably feel. US foreign policy in the Middle East has been muddled to say the least, and often appears to favour dictatorships and violent repression over political freedoms and peace. Perhaps the new Bush doctrine will alleviate these feelings and lead to a greater understanding between the Middle East and the US (hey, anything's possible) but it will take time and patience on both sides. As for the honour killings, I would say that is a cultural thing rather than a Muslim thing. Indonesian Muslims don' t do honour killings and neither do Malays. African American Muslims don't do honour killings, but Indian Hindus certain African Christian groups do. Please try to keep to Islam rather than to any particular ethnic group that professes the faith.

Gideon:

We are talking about a faction who is dedicated to the extinction, conversion, or subjugation of the rest of the world to their beliefs. As Larry said, if the Muslim majority wants to be seen as a religion of peace, they need to both condemn these actions and comply with the rest of the world in helping to round up these factions and bring them to justice.

In many cases they do condemn these actions. Unfortunately those who do are seldom heard in the public arena, or don't say it in English (and thus their words go unreported). The largest Islamic organisation in the world (NU) is against terrorism, and I do not feel it would be wrong to say that the majority of Muslims are against it in principle as well. However desperate times call for desperate measures, and in the face of ignorance and intolerance, both Western and Middle Eastern, it is all too easy to blame the group rather than the men or women responsible for the suffering.

As devil's advocate, however, I would suggest to the Western world and to Israel that the most effective way to elicit such statements from the Muslim leaders would be to seriously examine our own actions and let the chips fall where they may. As I have often said to my kids, "it doesn't matter who started it. YOU need to be the bigger person and help to end it". If they can understand it, at 9 and 6 years of age, why can't we?

I completely agree with you here. Someone should take the first step, and at least the west is sufficiently well-organised that it can control its more violent elements. It's time we acted like the noble and good people we claim to be.

cwarsh:

I believe that if you really believe in saving american lives, then you support completely getting out of the middle east, including in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Isarel

I don't agree. The US can play a role in the Middle East without antagonising the local populace. All it needs is a little more cultural sensitivity and a willingness to let the region sort its own problems out.

Helix: I see you've been reading your Machiavelli. In this case I kind of agree - the US has to choose whether it wishes to be evil or good in the Middle East. Oscilating wildly between the two only causes confusion and suspicion.

the vast majority of "Islamic" violence is political, but Islam spends a great deal of time confusing religion, law, and politics

Very perceptive, BakerStreet. I think this is the biggest problem concerning violence in the Middle East. People stereotype political violence and the subversion of religion for political reasons into some distorted image of the Muslim. The subversion of religion for political agenda is one of the biggest problems facing the world today.

bebfoo: Chill man, it's just a blog. Your point about Bush is valid I think. Until recently my image of protestant American Christianity was completely determined by pictures of people like Bush. It's only recently that I've learnt it's not all hate, inbreeding and violence in American Christianity. Everyone needs to make the same leap of faith into a more open and inquiring style of thought.

cwarsh: The US is firstly and foremostly focused on its own national interest, as is every other nationstate. Unless there is some sort of terrible global revolution, nations are always going to put their own interests ahead of others. Protest it if you like, but far more will be gained by trying to remind the US of its imperial responsibilities than trying to tell it not to protect its imperial rights.

CActo, I noticed the style was a bit different from other writings of yours,
you certainly got some reponses! I thought you were a bit over the top compared to
your more calm writing but you certainly made the point.

"cwarsh: The US is firstly and foremostly focused on its own national interest, as is every other nationstate. Unless there is some sort of terrible global revolution, nations are always going to put their own interests ahead of others. Protest it if you like, but far more will be gained by trying to remind the US of its imperial responsibilities than trying to tell it not to protect its imperial rights."
-I completely agree that the US should be completely focused on its own national interests, which is the reason why I support getting out of everywhere that isn't america. For example, how is it in the average american's best interest that we give billions of dollars a year to both the israelis and the palestinians so that they that can kill each other with it? I suppose that it makes for entertaining news coverage on CNN but that reasoning seems a little macabre for me. How is it in our best interest that we support the Saudi regime when many terrorist organizations hate us for doing just that? How is in our best interest to support the saudi regime when they are the most powerful member of a collusive oil monopoly that controls the worlds oild supply and prices?

Conventional politicians are always looking for the short term answer, for example, on gas prices:
1: Lets cut taxes on gasoline! OK, that works until you realize that you need that money to fund the road construction that you have structured.
2: Lets organize a blue ribbon commitee to search for price gouging among american oil sellers! OK, you never find anything because unlike the collusive organizations that supply the worlds oil, gas companies like ExxonMobil and BP are in direct competition on price.
3: Lets release some of our strategic oil reserve! OK, that works until you have to buy back that gas to refill the oil reserve at gas prices that aren't any lower than before, or until we actually need that oil for the strategic reason that we stockpile it in the first place.

Or, we could look pass the norm and look for the long-term solution. In the case of oil, it involves breaking the oil monopoly and organizing a competetive oil marketplace. This could be accomplished through political pressure, or through support for non OPEC oil producers, or by increasing production of energy within the US. It cannot be accomplished by spending billions on HELPING the oil monopolists.

Sir Peter Maxwell you are an extremist.

Ok if anyone is intrested here is my take on the situation. First of all I agree with cwarsh. Well written Cwarsh, props for that. Second- I also agree with whoever it was that stated that the muslim world should infact denounce the terrorist attacks (someone please inform me is there someone in the muslim world similar to the pope? if so this is the person who should do the denouncing). And I dont know about Cwarsh, but I condem terrorism by everyone. There is no excuse. I don't care if you are of an alien religion, there is no excuse. I will denounce everyone who commits a terrorist act, even if they were my brother. Why can't everyone do so? I will denounce Israel for their attacks on palesitnians, just as I will denounce the palestinians for attacking innocent civilians. Anytime civilians die I will denounce it. Why can't everyone? Does anyone support this.

SSG Geezer: Yeah, it was a bit over the top, but I was slightly enhanced when I wrote it.

cwarsh: Supplying weapons and equipment to both sides of a war is both good business and good foreign policy. It keeps your own industry running and weakens the two countries involved to such an extent that a) they cannot resist an attack and b) they will never even think of banding together against the one who's causing all the mischief.

As for the Muslim pope, there is noone in the Muslim world with anywhere near the same authority as the pope, and that's saying something, considering how many Catholics ignore him. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but only the Shi'ites have any "rank" in Islam above that of the average Muslim. In Sunni and other Muslim circles scholars might be afforded more respect, but they don't have this through the will of God. They have earned it instead. Ayatollahs and the lineage of Ali have a certain authority in Shi'ite Islam, although generally they only really have a great deal of power in their immediate regions or in Iran. That's why Salman Rushdie still lives; few Muslims take any notice of fatwas these days, just like few Anglicans take any notice of the Pope's views.

Hmm. Thats to bad. Even though I agree that many people do not listen to the pope, however the pope would denounce any terrorist who invoked the name of god and the catholic religion. In that respect, the Ayatollahs are not being ethical.

Cwarsh- I think the real solution is to completley eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil. Then we can pull out and say you want to fight- then fight. Don't involve me in and dont involve US citizens and we won't stop you. You threaten us and we will come after you with no end in sight. We could say we don't depend on you for oil. We could actaully tell saudi arabia to crack down on terror, and if they don't we will. Best of all, as I said earlier, we can leave their internal conflicts that currently disrupt our oil to them to deal with. I actually think this is the most important thing that this country needs to do. I think that the future safety and economic stability depends on the fact taht we do not depend on other countries (especially unfriendly ones) for oil. We can depend on them a little, but as long as we have enough of a backup in place, then we can say fine if you don't crack down we will change to this source of supply, even if it does cost .10 more a gallon. I think I shall actually start a post later on the idea of reducing our foreign dependence on oil so we can discuss this topic in particular, but I like your ideas of why we have this issue of terror from the middle east in the first place.

"Cwarsh- I think the real solution is to completley eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil."
-How? Yeah we could drill in our wildlife refuges, and I don't think that I would be especially opposed to that as long as certain measures were taken, but even then its a relateively small amount of oil. Other than that, we could ramp up renewable energy capacity.. but thats substancially more expensive than petroleum.

To answer the title question, though, cacto, I am going to go out on a limb and say that neither appellation applies to Islam.

They are not a global terror for two reasons:

1) because the militant Islamic factions that operate outside of their countries are a minority of Muslims. As for those internal factions, a certain deference must be given here to self determination, even if it is not a path we would choose. Many Muslims are just plain folks trying to raise their families as you and I are. This is a climate of misunderstanding, not unlike the cold war in which many of us grew up, only with a different face.

2) Despite what the media would have you believe, the minority that espouse terrorists views aren't substantial enough that we couldn't eradicate them quickly if the threat of attack was truly imminent. The reason we have not done so is a respect for the American legal system and a certain deference towards their humanitarian rights. This would change in a heartbeat if we were truly threatened, believe me.

Islam is not a global scapegoat because they have allowed some of this perception to be brought on themselves. They have allowed their hatred of the nation of Israel to blind them to the fact that the actions of their countrymen are appalling and should be condemned as such. They also have not worked hard enough in ferreting out those who would work diligently to disturb the peace process. In short, they bear some of the responsibility for their own condemnation.

Thank you for an excellent topic and for moderating it well, cacto.

after reading through this and the several other posts about the dangers of  islam--more to the point, the dangers of fundamentalist islamist theocracy--as well as gideon's appropriately scary vision of life in falwellian america, it strikes me how for more than 20 years america itself has been treading on the edge of fundamentalist theocracy. that may sound alarmist or worse but it's difficult to argue with the fact that one cannot hope to win the republican presidential nomination without the approval of none other than jerry falwell and his fellow imams.  (its with no little irony i recall 44 years ago, jfk had to publicly promise the nation his allegiance to the usa took precedence to the precepts of his church).  cardinals and bishops in several large dioceses whove publicly warned their flocks that voting for kerry is morally wrong. 

im posting a comment very similar to this in those blogs to which i refer in the first sentence.

I strongly agree that the statement "they hate us for our freedom" is one of the most inane, idiotic, and dangerous statements Bush has made.

They perceive our democracy as a threat because the spread of it would cause the aspects of their society they suppress to challenge them, such as women and intellectuals. Islamic "scholars" are not intellectuals and are just mouthpieces for bigotry and hatred.

So, in a sense, they do hate us for our freedom. That is if you take freedom to mean political freedom.

I do not give any credence to the idea that we are somehow to blame for the terrorism we face, the Muslims that embrace terror should look to their own corrupt leaderships for the cause of their suffering, not Britain or America.

"I do not give any credence to the idea that we are somehow to blame for the terrorism we face"
-not to blame in any legitamate way, but you might say instigators. Having military bases in places where the local population doesn't want them is bad for the average american- it costs them money, incites terrorism, and doesn't do anything for them.

"So, in a sense, they do hate us for our freedom. That is if you take freedom to mean political freedom."
-I've never heard of Osama bin Laden saying that he hates america because it is governed by representatives elected in a ballot system except in cases where they are elected by caucus. I have heard of him saying that he hates america because we have military bases near the holiest city in islam, and because we support with military aid the monarchy of saudi arabia which he oppposes. Do these actions by america legitimize his terrorism? Certainly not, but do they instigate it?

If Saudi Arabia established a military base in Vatican City I'm sure that a lot of Catholics wouid be pissed... maybe they wouldn't resort to terrorism but they'd do something.

I've never heard of Osama bin Laden saying that he hates america because it is governed by representatives elected in a ballot system except in cases where they are elected by caucus.

It is quite obvious that Bin Laden does not favour democracy, which is seen as a tool of the "decadent" west.

I have heard of him saying that he hates america because we have military bases near the holiest city in islam

I have also heard him say that September 11th was a glorious day in world history, the man is not be listened to at all. I funded his warriors in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, but as soon as I realised his real intentions against the west I cut off ties with him.
Link

He obviously has bad intentions against the west. The point here is not whether or not he is an evil evil man. We know that his is. The point is that it is not fully and soley because we are a democracy. It is also because we do somethings that although not meant to antagonize, clearly cause some animocity in the middle east.